R v Freer and Weekes

Case [2004] QCA 97

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Freer & Weekes [2004] QCA 97

PARTIES:

R
v
FREER, Gavin John
WEEKES, Bradley John
(appellants)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 203 of 2003
CA No 206 of 2003
SC No 19 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

6 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2003

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, Jones and Holmes JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. In Appeal No 203 of 2003: Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. In Appeal No 206 of 2003: Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – where two appellants tried together – where out of court confession solely inculpating first appellant and exculpating second appellant tendered by second appellant at trial – whether confession admissible against first appellant when not tendered by prosecuting authority – where counsel for first appellant applied confessional statement to the forensic benefit of first appellant – confessional statement admissible against first appellant – discussion of circumstances in which confessional statement admissible against first appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – CONDUCT OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – where appellants convicted of murder – where inflammatory and emotive address by prosecutor – where address contained misstatement of law - whether there was a real risk that the remarks wrongly influenced the verdict resulting in unfair trial – whether judge’s directions remedied risks of prejudice – no real risk that prosecutor’s remarks wrongly influenced the verdict in the circumstances

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where appellants convicted of murder – where prosecutor suggested that appellants had told lies– whether trial judge erred in failing to give an Edwards or Zoneff direction to the jury – where prosecution did not contend that lies were evidence of guilt – where trial judge was not asked to give either an Edwards or Zoneff direction – trial judge did not err in failing to give direction

Bannon v R (1996) 185 CLR 1, considered
Dhanhoa v R (2003) 199 ALR 547, applied
Edwards v R (1993) 187 CLR 193, considered
R v Day [2002] QCA 313, (2000) 115 A Crim R 80, considered
R v Ciseau [1994] QCA 473; CA No 470 of 1993 and CA No 155 of 1994, 8 November 1994, applied
R v K ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 260; CA No 24 of 2002 and CA No 67 of 2002, 30 July 2002, applied
R v Martin, Klinge & Sambo [2002] QCA 443, CA No 79 of 2002, CA No 93 of 2003 and CA No 114 of 2002, 25 October 2002, considered

Continue reading R v Freer and Weekes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Freer and Weekes [2004] QCA 97
Case
[2004] QCA 97
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Freer and Weekes, the appellants, Freer and Weekes, were jointly tried and convicted of the murder of a woman. The primary issues in the appeal were the admissibility of a confession by one appellant that implicated the other, the fairness of the trial in light of a prosecutor's address, and the trial judge's failure to give an Edwards or Zoneff direction to the jury regarding alleged lies told by the appellants.

The court considered whether the confession of Weekes, which implicated Freer and exculpated Weekes, was admissible against Freer when tendered by Weekes' counsel rather than the prosecution. The court found that the confession was admissible because Freer's counsel had applied the confessional statement to the forensic benefit of Freer by cross-examining Weekes on the contents of the statement. The court also reviewed the prosecutor's address, which contained misstatements of law, and determined that there was no real risk that the remarks wrongly influenced the verdict, especially given the judge's directions to the jury.

Further, the court examined whether the trial judge should have given an Edwards or Zoneff direction in response to the prosecutor's suggestion that the appellants had lied. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in failing to give such a direction because the prosecution did not contend that the lies were evidence of guilt, and the judge was not asked to give an Edwards or Zoneff direction.

The appeal against the convictions was dismissed in both cases, affirming the appellants' convictions for the murder. The court's reasoning underscored the importance of the admissibility of confessions in criminal trials, the impact of prosecutorial remarks, and the circumstances under which specific jury directions are required.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In Appeal No 203 of 2003: Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. In Appeal No 206 of 2003: Appeal against conviction dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.